AA, DL e UA protestano contro vettori Qatar & UAE per concorrenza sleale
- Autore Discussione East End Ave
- Data d'inizio
balle
KPMG e' auditor di etihad e non puo' certificare (o analizzare) il bilancio di EY per openfairskies o per nessun altro. Magari qualcun altro avra' interpretato a modo suo l'audit di KPMG...
Qui si fa sempre molta confusione...
ti prego, aiutaci a capire allora: perche' il bilancio positivo del 2014, o 2016, si e' trasformato in una caporetto?
Attendiamo ansiosi la tua "intrepretazione".
e che cosa c'entra questo con le tue "Fake News"? Tu hai detto che KPMG ha fatto un auditing indipendente. Niente di piu' falso...
stai tranquillo, nessuna fake news: ho solo detto che KPMG non e' al soldo di EY, ma e' un auditor INDIPENDENTE pagato per certificare bilanci. In questo senso cerca di intendere, e puoi, quel "auditing indipendente"; non e' che perche' ti pago puoi alterare i conti, no?
grande arrampicata sugli specchi...
ma oggi del dumping di AZ non ne parliamo
Notizia ormai di qualche giorno fa che non e' stata ancora commentata, ma il Qatar si e' ritirato dall'offerta.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...andons-plan-to-buy-stake-in-american-airlines
Alaska, JetBlue, Hawaiian, FedEx, Atlas Air ed altre 23 firmatarie (aeroporti ed enti vari) si sono pubblicamente schierati per riaffermare l'open skies con i paesi del golfo ed hanno sostanzialmente respinto i protezionismi richiesti da US3.
Group including several US airlines pushes back on majors’ Gulf campaign
A group including several US airlines, US airports and US companies associated with tourism has urged Congress to reaffirm Open Skies agreements and reject pleas from American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines to take action against the major Gulf carriers over alleged subsidies.
Dallas/Fort Worth-based American, Atlanta-based Delta and Chicago-based United continue to push for the US government to address what the major US airlines allege are improper subsidies to Emirates Airline and Etihad Airways from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and to Qatar Airways from the government of Qatar. Unsuccessful in convincing the Obama administration to take up the issue with the UAE and Qatar in a formal setting, the three major US airlines have in recent months renewed their effort, hoping to convince the Trump administration to take action.
But other US passenger airlines—including Alaska Airlines, JetBlue Airways and Hawaiian Airlines—and air cargo operators—including FedEx Corp. and Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings—have spoken out against the major US airlines’ campaign.
For Seattle-based Alaska, New York-based JetBlue and Hawaiian, restricting the Gulf carriers' access to the US could decrease the flow of codeshare passengers coming to the US aboard the Gulf airlines. The cargo carriers fear changes in the Open Skies agreements with the UAE and Qatar initiated by the US could lead to reciprocal alterations on the Gulf side that threaten their cargo networks in the Middle East.
Alaska, JetBlue, Hawaiian, Memphis-based FedEx and Purchase, New York-based Atlas have joined with 23 other signatories—including the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, Airports Council International-North America and Memphis International Airport—to express their concerns about the US major airlines’ campaign in a letter to Congress.
“We are a diverse group of companies and organizations that benefit from an open and competitive airline system,” the group writes in the Aug. 7 letter. “Opens Skies promote competition in the airline industry, reduce costs for airline passengers, facilitate US exports, support US jobs and strengthen local economies.”
The group writes that Open Skies accords “create open markets for airline services and eliminate government interference in commercial decisions about the routes, frequency, pricing, and capacity of airline service, both for passenger and cargo carriers,” adding that the agreements “open markets and save customers $4 billion on international travel every year. They enable cargo carriers to create global route networks, helping US companies export millions of tons of cargo to customers across the world. They facilitate international tourism to the United States, which brings nearly $250 billion of spending into our local economies and small businesses. All in all, Open Skies agreements support more than 15 million US tourism and hospitality jobs.”
The group argues that the push by American, Delta and United aims to “restrict access to the US market for two Open Skies partners, in breach of our obligations.”
The Partnership for Open & Fair Skies, a coalition that includes American, Delta, United and a number of airline labor unions, responded: “It’s pretty sad that some people are willing to risk the economic well-being of the American aviation industry and the 1.2 million jobs it supports just to defend the Gulf carriers’ ability to keep on taking billions of dollars in foreign government subsidies. The truth is that Open Skies agreements already provide a way to deal with rule-breakers, and anything else is just an attempt to delay and derail American jobs.”
http://atwonline.com/open-skies/group-including-several-us-airlines-pushes-back-majors-gulf-campaign
Group including several US airlines pushes back on majors’ Gulf campaign
A group including several US airlines, US airports and US companies associated with tourism has urged Congress to reaffirm Open Skies agreements and reject pleas from American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines to take action against the major Gulf carriers over alleged subsidies.
Dallas/Fort Worth-based American, Atlanta-based Delta and Chicago-based United continue to push for the US government to address what the major US airlines allege are improper subsidies to Emirates Airline and Etihad Airways from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and to Qatar Airways from the government of Qatar. Unsuccessful in convincing the Obama administration to take up the issue with the UAE and Qatar in a formal setting, the three major US airlines have in recent months renewed their effort, hoping to convince the Trump administration to take action.
But other US passenger airlines—including Alaska Airlines, JetBlue Airways and Hawaiian Airlines—and air cargo operators—including FedEx Corp. and Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings—have spoken out against the major US airlines’ campaign.
For Seattle-based Alaska, New York-based JetBlue and Hawaiian, restricting the Gulf carriers' access to the US could decrease the flow of codeshare passengers coming to the US aboard the Gulf airlines. The cargo carriers fear changes in the Open Skies agreements with the UAE and Qatar initiated by the US could lead to reciprocal alterations on the Gulf side that threaten their cargo networks in the Middle East.
Alaska, JetBlue, Hawaiian, Memphis-based FedEx and Purchase, New York-based Atlas have joined with 23 other signatories—including the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, Airports Council International-North America and Memphis International Airport—to express their concerns about the US major airlines’ campaign in a letter to Congress.
“We are a diverse group of companies and organizations that benefit from an open and competitive airline system,” the group writes in the Aug. 7 letter. “Opens Skies promote competition in the airline industry, reduce costs for airline passengers, facilitate US exports, support US jobs and strengthen local economies.”
The group writes that Open Skies accords “create open markets for airline services and eliminate government interference in commercial decisions about the routes, frequency, pricing, and capacity of airline service, both for passenger and cargo carriers,” adding that the agreements “open markets and save customers $4 billion on international travel every year. They enable cargo carriers to create global route networks, helping US companies export millions of tons of cargo to customers across the world. They facilitate international tourism to the United States, which brings nearly $250 billion of spending into our local economies and small businesses. All in all, Open Skies agreements support more than 15 million US tourism and hospitality jobs.”
The group argues that the push by American, Delta and United aims to “restrict access to the US market for two Open Skies partners, in breach of our obligations.”
The Partnership for Open & Fair Skies, a coalition that includes American, Delta, United and a number of airline labor unions, responded: “It’s pretty sad that some people are willing to risk the economic well-being of the American aviation industry and the 1.2 million jobs it supports just to defend the Gulf carriers’ ability to keep on taking billions of dollars in foreign government subsidies. The truth is that Open Skies agreements already provide a way to deal with rule-breakers, and anything else is just an attempt to delay and derail American jobs.”
http://atwonline.com/open-skies/group-including-several-us-airlines-pushes-back-majors-gulf-campaign
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5989950ae4b08a4c247f2586
One of the things we’ve learned in recent years from waves of financial scandals is that you can’t fool the accountants. And it’s especially hard to trick forensic accountants, the professionals specifically trained to identify “cooked books.” It was thus not especially surprising that forensic accountants recently showed that the $103 million profit that Etihad Airways claimed for its 2015 fiscal year was actually an operating loss of $2.06 billion; worse, that result was after Etihad’s government owners kicked in $1.7 billion in subsidies. Those poor results followed an operating loss of $1.4 billion and subsidies of $2.6 billion in its 2014 fiscal year.
That news came on the heels of Qatar Airways’ bogus financial results for fiscal year 2017, in which the airline claimed profits of nearly $540 million but according to investigators actually lost $703 million, nearly doubling its operating loss from the previous year. And that on top of FY 2017 state subsidies of $491 million. As the baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, “It’s déjà vu all over again.”
The accounting shenanigans at Etihad and Qatar Airways are not simply cases of sloppy bookkeeping at small, oil-rich states. The government subsidies violate the “Open Skies” aviation agreements that give the United Arab Emirates – home of Etihad and Emirates Airline – and Qatar unlimited access to the U.S. market. The language in these pacts is clear: you get to fly to any U.S. city as often as you want, charge whatever you want for tickets, but you cannot be subsidized. In every industry – steelmaking and solar panels are good examples from manufacturing – subsidies distort competition and threaten U.S. companies, their employees, and the communities they serve.
Etihad Airways, Emirates, and Qatar Airways have grown faster than any airline since commercial aviation began, thanks to enormous state support. Just since 2015, they have increased their flights to the U.S. by 50 percent. Thanks to wheelbarrows of government cash, their astonishing growth is divorced from the normal commercial realities that real, investor-owned airlines like American, Delta, and United face every day. To the Gulf carriers, profit doesn’t matter, and they can sell tickets at a loss. Their allies in Washington tell you cheap fares on the three Gulf airlines are a great thing, but they don’t ever tell you that those prices are artificially low, made possible by massive government subsidies – or that once fair-playing competitors have been forced off of a route, the Gulf carriers can set prices as high as they want. U.S. airlines don’t have such Santa Claus largesse.
Speaking of nice gifts, in FY 2015 Etihad also received another interest-free government loan, $270 million, with no obligation to repay the loan in the forseeable future. More unreality made possible by a generous state.
Just days after the forensic accountants posted their assessment of Etihad’s FY 2015 financials, the airline released its FY 2016 results. According the Etihad – and subject to clear-eyed review by the forensic experts – Etihad lost $1.87 billion. It’s hard to plumb motive, but perhaps the reality birds are coming to roost in Abu Dhabi. The loss equates to about 40% of the carrier’s passenger revenue. Nearly half of the loss, $808 million, comes from a write-down of the value of their investments in Alitalia, the perennially-struggling Italian carrier, Air Berlin in Germany, and other troubled airlines. When the recently-dismissed Etihad CEO, James Hogan, began this “equity investment strategy” several years ago, seasoned airline experts shook their heads in disbelief, and their skepticism has been validated. In any case, the varied drivers of the FY 2016 Etihad loss are further proof that their business is neither sustainable nor economically rational.
Back in Washington, congressional support is building for the Trump administration to enforce the aviation agreements with the UAE and Qatar – 285 members of Congress from both parties, including 25 senators have called on secretaries Tillerson and Chao to take action. This latest news from Etihad adds to the urgency.
One of the things we’ve learned in recent years from waves of financial scandals is that you can’t fool the accountants. And it’s especially hard to trick forensic accountants, the professionals specifically trained to identify “cooked books.” It was thus not especially surprising that forensic accountants recently showed that the $103 million profit that Etihad Airways claimed for its 2015 fiscal year was actually an operating loss of $2.06 billion; worse, that result was after Etihad’s government owners kicked in $1.7 billion in subsidies. Those poor results followed an operating loss of $1.4 billion and subsidies of $2.6 billion in its 2014 fiscal year.
That news came on the heels of Qatar Airways’ bogus financial results for fiscal year 2017, in which the airline claimed profits of nearly $540 million but according to investigators actually lost $703 million, nearly doubling its operating loss from the previous year. And that on top of FY 2017 state subsidies of $491 million. As the baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, “It’s déjà vu all over again.”
The accounting shenanigans at Etihad and Qatar Airways are not simply cases of sloppy bookkeeping at small, oil-rich states. The government subsidies violate the “Open Skies” aviation agreements that give the United Arab Emirates – home of Etihad and Emirates Airline – and Qatar unlimited access to the U.S. market. The language in these pacts is clear: you get to fly to any U.S. city as often as you want, charge whatever you want for tickets, but you cannot be subsidized. In every industry – steelmaking and solar panels are good examples from manufacturing – subsidies distort competition and threaten U.S. companies, their employees, and the communities they serve.
Etihad Airways, Emirates, and Qatar Airways have grown faster than any airline since commercial aviation began, thanks to enormous state support. Just since 2015, they have increased their flights to the U.S. by 50 percent. Thanks to wheelbarrows of government cash, their astonishing growth is divorced from the normal commercial realities that real, investor-owned airlines like American, Delta, and United face every day. To the Gulf carriers, profit doesn’t matter, and they can sell tickets at a loss. Their allies in Washington tell you cheap fares on the three Gulf airlines are a great thing, but they don’t ever tell you that those prices are artificially low, made possible by massive government subsidies – or that once fair-playing competitors have been forced off of a route, the Gulf carriers can set prices as high as they want. U.S. airlines don’t have such Santa Claus largesse.
Speaking of nice gifts, in FY 2015 Etihad also received another interest-free government loan, $270 million, with no obligation to repay the loan in the forseeable future. More unreality made possible by a generous state.
Just days after the forensic accountants posted their assessment of Etihad’s FY 2015 financials, the airline released its FY 2016 results. According the Etihad – and subject to clear-eyed review by the forensic experts – Etihad lost $1.87 billion. It’s hard to plumb motive, but perhaps the reality birds are coming to roost in Abu Dhabi. The loss equates to about 40% of the carrier’s passenger revenue. Nearly half of the loss, $808 million, comes from a write-down of the value of their investments in Alitalia, the perennially-struggling Italian carrier, Air Berlin in Germany, and other troubled airlines. When the recently-dismissed Etihad CEO, James Hogan, began this “equity investment strategy” several years ago, seasoned airline experts shook their heads in disbelief, and their skepticism has been validated. In any case, the varied drivers of the FY 2016 Etihad loss are further proof that their business is neither sustainable nor economically rational.
Back in Washington, congressional support is building for the Trump administration to enforce the aviation agreements with the UAE and Qatar – 285 members of Congress from both parties, including 25 senators have called on secretaries Tillerson and Chao to take action. This latest news from Etihad adds to the urgency.
Domanda: South African Airways riceverà corposi aiuti di Stato, a breve, a meno che non vogliano farla fallire (e dubito che Zuma lascerà così tanti leccapiedi di partito a casa); Turkish Airlines è al 49.12% di proprietà statale; China Southern lo è al 100%; nel 2015, lo stato francese ha incrementato la sua quota in AF-KL al 17.qualcosa percento, pagando una quarantina di milioni, e lasciamo perdere Alitalia.
Perché la campagna per 'fair skies' non riguarda anche loro?
Perché la campagna per 'fair skies' non riguarda anche loro?
Perche' l'unica cosa che veramente fa paura alle US3 e' il 5th freedom delle M3
Perchè, amico mio, la questione non riguarda tanto la presenza o meno dello stato nei vettori, quanto questo incida in maniera pesante portando alla violazione degli accordi open-skies; come appunto nel caso delle tre golfare.
Con buona pace dell'oracolo della sabbia che si pronuncia solo quando c'è da parlar male di altri. Professionalità innanzitutto.
Bene. Definiamo "pesante". Io l'intervento dello stato francese in AF lo definirei pesante, se non in termini monetari almeno in termini politici. Cosi' come quello in Alitalia - anzi, pure peggio. E se poi parliamo delle compagnie cinesi, li possiamo andarci a nozze, telefonare a CX per capire cosa significhi avere Air China, China Southern, China Eastern, Hainan e tutta la miriade di loro consociate in mano statale. Sono, o non sono, alterazioni significanti della concorrenza? Perche' le US3 non ci fanno nulla?
E di nuovo; perché non stanno violando gli accordi open-skies in essere con gli USA!
Q: What makes Qatar and the UAE different from other countries that provide subsidies to their national carriers?
A: Qatar and the UAE are global outliers in several ways:
In the sheer magnitude of the subsidies granted to the three airlines.
In the unprecedented expansion of subsidized capacity that their carriers are deploying on international routes, including on U.S. routes, far in excess of the growth in global demand.
In the extent to which they are intervening in the market to help their state-owned airlines radically increase the flow of airline passengers through their hubs in the Middle East.
In che senso? Gli accordi Open Skies tra UE e USA, o il bilaterale USA-Cina permettono la presenza di compagnie di proprieta' pubblica, o aiutate dal pubblico, mentre quello con Qatar/EAU no?
Potrei cancellare Qatar e UAE, e mettere Cina, e sarebbe esattamente lo stesso. Io non disputo che EY e QR ricevano aiuti (ma ho molti piu' dubbi su EK) ma perche' solo loro? Se vogliamo "fair skies" allora che siano "fair" con tutti. Quindi con le cinesi, AF, AZ, Aeroflot, SAA, TK...
Errato. Io mi pronuncio solo quando so.
E gia' stato comunicato (tramite canali non ufficiali of course, ma senza mezzi termini) che gli USA vogliono una revisione dell'open skies e che solamente la rimossione del 5th freedom li rendera' felici. E' per questo che a B6 e altri (22) importa poco o nulla...
Ti dimentichi un fatto. Noi abbiamo ottimi rapporti con US3 a livello commerciale/professionale, e la recente decisione di rimuovere i CS (come il ban elettronico) e' puramente politica. E questo ci viene detto... from the horse's mouth
Ma scusa tanto; te la "guerra" la fai col "nemico" che ti sta entrando dentro casa (in modo improprio) o con chiunque si comporti fuori dalle convenzioni in giro per il mondo?
Chi è che si sta incaxxando contro AZ qui da noi, ad esempio, per concorrenza sleale? Neos!
E cosa dovrebbe fare Neos, andare contro le cinesi o le golfare o ancora le US3 perché su altri terreni si combatte per la stessa questione?
E dai!
BA difenderà il suo mercato, le americane il loro, le ME3 il loro e così via, inclusa NEOS contro AZ; mi sembra tanto logico!
Quindi non ci sono regole sulla proprieta' pubblica in Open Skies US-EU, US-QR, US-EAU o nel bilaterale US-Cina.
Parlando della tua domanda:
Air France non vola in America?
Alitalia non vola in America?
South African Airways non vola in America?
Aeroflot non vola in America?
China Southern, China Eastern, Air China, Hainan: non volano in America? Anzi, a guardare in fretta su Google mi sembra di vedere che ci siano piu' posti sui voli Cina-USA che USA-Middle East, e tutto questo senza un open skies, e la maggioranza della capacita' e in mano ai cinesi. Quindi perche' non ci sono "fair skies" contro la Cina, anzi; Delta investe in una di loro?
Mi spiace ma questa crociata e' come quella di Boeing contro Airbus (e viceversa per par condicio): senza senso, incompleta.